It seems transparent to me that the whole thing with the cloak was a gambit to manipulate Harry. Harry's trust in the note-sender's warning, followed by Dumbledore's noble and forgiving reaction, caused Harry to feel guilty for doubting Dumbledore, and to tend towards trusting him more and trusting people who told him to doubt Dumbledore less.

If Dumbledore was playing both sides (and thus lying his head off), he achieved his real objective (to make Harry trust him more) very elegantly.

It seems transparent to me that the whole thing with the cloak was a gambit to manipulate Harry.

Of course, I understand that part. It's not really the point. My point is that at all other times he seems to do his manipulations by misleading without lying.

Another example: the note about the escape-out-of-Hogwarts portkey, which Dumbledore later admitted to have written (and now that I checked, he admitted to writing both). In it, he misleadingly suggests the portkey leads to the Salem's Witches' institute without actually saying so. (Quirrel picked up on that for Harry).

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, January 2015, chapter 103

by b_sen 1 min read29th Jan 2015174 comments


New chapter, and the end is now in sight!

This is a new thread to discuss Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality and anything related to it. This thread is intended for discussing chapter 103.

There is a site dedicated to the story at, which is now the place to go to find the authors notes and all sorts of other goodies. AdeleneDawner has kept an archive of Author’s Notes. (This goes up to the notes for chapter 76, and is now not updating. The authors notes from chapter 77 onwards are on

Spoiler Warning: this thread is full of spoilers. With few exceptions, spoilers for MOR and canon are fair game to post, without warning or rot13. More specifically:

You do not need to rot13 anything about HP:MoR or the original Harry Potter series unless you are posting insider information from Eliezer Yudkowsky which is not supposed to be publicly available (which includes public statements by Eliezer that have been retracted).

If there is evidence for X in MOR and/or canon then it’s fine to post about X without rot13, even if you also have heard privately from Eliezer that X is true. But you should not post that “Eliezer said X is true” unless you use rot13.